Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Mind you, gender identification is typically determined at a far earlier age, and it seems reasonable to inquire about it (anonymously, of course).

Accuracy wouldn't be my primary concern here; privacy would be. (Although accuracy would have to be taken into account too, for the data to be used meaningfully.)

I've been answering questions about my ethnicity on pretty much every gov't form since the 1st grade, and the government seems to have handled that pretty well. Expecting their privacy measures to suddenly implode the moment you add gender identification to the mix seems a bit silly.

As for accuracy, that would seem to be more an issue of trusting the person being asked the question. Being transgendered is a matter of personal opinion anyhow, so asking how the subject self-identifies is still the most accurate option available.

Who are we to judge what two consenting adults want to do in a truck stop?

Ahtman wrote:Who are we to judge what two consenting adults want to do in a truck stop?

Because if the truck stop is a public place, we have laws that might govern how we judge these two consenting adults.

If this is a private truck stop in a private place, there might be an owner who will judge these two consenting adults if they get caught.

If one of them owns the truck stop then by all means no one should interfere with the two consenting adults.

Laughing Man wrote:
I've been answering questions about my ethnicity on pretty much every gov't form since the 1st grade, and the government seems to have handled that pretty well. Expecting their privacy measures to suddenly implode the moment you add gender identification to the mix seems a bit silly.

I mean, the only reason you can reasonably assume that survey research data won't be used to compromise privacy is the existence of the Office for Human Research Protections, which is a Federal agency.

Laughing Man wrote:I've been answering questions about my ethnicity on pretty much every gov't form since the 1st grade, and the government seems to have handled that pretty well.

That's a far more readily observable attribute, however, and generally isn't considered to be private information. At least, insofar as "ethnicity" is constrained to broad categories, rather than more detailed family history.

Expecting their privacy measures to suddenly implode the moment you add gender identification to the mix seems a bit silly.

I never said anything would implode.

As for accuracy, that would seem to be more an issue of trusting the person being asked the question. Being transgendered is a matter of personal opinion anyhow, so asking how the subject self-identifies is still the most accurate option available.

That doesn't necessarily mean it's sufficiently accurate to base judgements off of, although I'm wondering how we got to discussing transgender in the first place.

That doesn't necessarily mean it's sufficiently accurate to base judgements off of, although I'm wondering how we got to discussing transgender in the first place.

OP mentions gender identity, which generally refers to which gender one self identifies as.

Ah, I missed that originally. Thanks.

It's strange to see this exact topic here! It's like some kind of collective consciousness attack or something.

I hardly ever watch TV. I might watch approximately 5 minutes a month, tops. Japanese TV is horrible and even the English programs suck the big one (13 hours of CSI a day - uhhhh, No Thanks). Anyway, yesterday I got my 5 minutes in in 2 minute plus segments about 10 hours apart and both shows that happened to be on when I cruised into the living room were about sexual identity. Just strange. I mean, Japanese guys are a bit effeminate (men's only eyebrow razors, as an example), but this was like over the top even for them.

Really, the most interesting thing to come out of this thread is that people who claim they're not biased against homosexuals would assume they were being attacked when it was suggested it was relatively easy to get homosexual sex in truck stops in their state.

Oops, never mind.

WarOne wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Who are we to judge what two consenting adults want to do in a truck stop?

Because if the truck stop is a public place, we have laws that might govern how we judge these two consenting adults.

If this is a private truck stop in a private place, there might be an owner who will judge these two consenting adults if they get caught.

If one of them owns the truck stop then by all means no one should interfere with the two consenting adults.

I actually understand the reason, it was an inside joke. The person who it was for knows. Or people who read the other thread I can't remember at the moment.

SilverMK2 wrote:I don't believe that you should be asked to give any information that is not pertinent to your treatment.

So then why be outraged over this collection of demographic information and not others? The article wasn't opposed to collecting information in general, just specifically this specific information. I don't buy that this is some kind of general opposition to demographic information, not when the article goes on and on about KIDS and HOMOSEXUALITY. If you're genuinely opposed to collecting information like this, then you should complain under a thread that deals in general terms, not one about a sensationalistic article that talks about asking THE CHILDREN whether they are GAYs.

You should have the right to refuse to give any information that is not strictly required, and have any information stored on you that you do not wish to be recorded (such as sexual preference, race, etc) removed from your records.

I saw in the article where they'd ask the question, I didn't see anywhere in the article (much less the actual bill) that said that patients would be required to answer in order to receive treatment, so it looks like you can refuse to give information if you want. Medical records are intended to be a complete history of treatment received and as such information generally cannot be removed from them because yanking information causes severe problems if those records later need to be used in malpractice, insurance, or legal proceedings.

Your sexual preference or race is, to the vast majority of illnesses and medical issues, irrelevant. Your religious views are also largely irrelevant unless it precludes the use of certain treatments (blood transfusions etc). This information should certainly not then be passed on to third parties.

Sexual preference is extremely relevant when examining sexually transmitted diseases, and there are a number of other diseases that affect particular races more than others (like sickle-cell anemia). Anonymized information on diseases being passed on to researchers to study the spread of diseases is extremely useful in developing programs to treat and prevent diseases. But debate over that health issue isn't really relevant to asking "School Children about Sexual Preference", which is what the article gets indignant over.

I thought the article was remarkably calm by the hystrionic standards of the conservative "press"